Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part. Responses are still coming in, and doctors' positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series.

Major findings included:

• Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul.

It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a "majority of physicians want public and private insurance options," and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday's front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Doctors Go For Obama's Reform."

Nowhere in the Times story does it say doctors as a whole back the overhaul. It says only that the AMA — the "association representing the nation's physicians" and what "many still regard as the country's premier lobbying force" — is "lobbying and advertising to win public support for President Obama's sweeping plan."

The AMA, in fact, represents approximately 18% of physicians and has been hit with a number of defections by members opposed to the AMA's support of Democrats' proposed health care overhaul.

• Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.

More than 800,000 doctors were practicing in 2006, the government says. Projecting the poll's finding onto that population, 360,000 doctors would consider quitting.

• More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered "no" when asked if they believed "the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better."

This response is consistent with critics who complain that the administration and congressional Democrats have yet to explain how, even with the current number of physicians and nurses, they can cover more people and lower the cost at the same time.

The only way, the critics contend, is by rationing care — giving it to some and denying it to others. That cuts against another claim by plan supporters — that care would be better.

IBD/TIPP's finding that many doctors could leave the business suggests that such rationing could be more severe than even critics believe. Rationing is one of the drawbacks associated with government plans in countries such as Canada and the U.K. Stories about growing waiting lists for badly needed care, horror stories of care gone wrong, babies born on sidewalks, and even people dying as a result of care delayed or denied are rife.

In this country, the number of doctors is already lagging population growth.

From 2003 to 2006, the number of active physicians in the U.S. grew by just 0.8% a year, adding a total of 25,700 doctors.

Recent population growth has been 1% a year. Patients, in short, are already being added faster than physicians, creating a medical bottleneck.

The great concern is that, with increased mandates, lower pay and less freedom to practice, doctors could abandon medicine in droves, as the IBD/TIPP Poll suggests. Under the proposed medical overhaul, an additional 47 million people would have to be cared for — an 18% increase in patient loads, without an equivalent increase in doctors. The actual effect could be somewhat less because a significant share of the uninsured already get care.

Even so, the government vows to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from health care spending to pay for reform, which would encourage a flight from the profession.

The U.S. today has just 2.4 physicians per 1,000 population — below the median of 3.1 for members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the official club of wealthy nations.

Adding millions of patients to physicians' caseloads would threaten to overwhelm the system. Medical gatekeepers would have to deny care to large numbers of people. That means care would have to be rationed.

"It's like giving everyone free bus passes, but there are only two buses," Dr. Ted Epperly, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, told the Associated Press.

Hope for a surge in new doctors may be misplaced. A recent study from the Association of American Medical Colleges found steadily declining enrollment in medical schools since 1980.

The study found that, just with current patient demand, the U.S. will have 159,000 fewer doctors than it needs by 2025. Unless corrected, that would make some sort of medical rationing or long waiting lists almost mandatory.

Experiments at the state level show that an overhaul isn't likely to change much.

On Monday came word from the Massachusetts Medical Society — a group representing physicians in a state that has implemented an overhaul similar to that under consideration in Washington — that doctor shortages remain a growing problem.

Its 2009 Physician Workforce Study found that:

• The primary care specialties of family medicine and internal medicine are in short supply for a fourth straight year.

• The percentage of primary care practices closed to new patients is the highest ever recorded.

• Seven of 18 specialties — dermatology, neurology, urology, vascular surgery and (for the first time) obstetrics-gynecology, in addition to family and internal medicine — are in short supply.

• Recruitment and retention of physicians remains difficult, especially at community hospitals and with primary care.

A key reason for the doctor shortages, according to the study, is a "lingering poor practice environment in the state."

In 2006, Massachusetts passed its medical overhaul — minus a public option — similar to what's being proposed on a national scale now. It hasn't worked as expected. Costs are higher, with insurance premiums rising 22% faster than in the U.S. as a whole.

"Health spending in Massachusetts is higher than the United States on average and is growing at a faster rate," according to a recent report from the Urban Institute.

Other states with government-run or mandated health insurance systems, including Maine, Tennessee and Hawaii, have been forced to cut back services and coverage.

This experience has been repeated in other countries where a form of nationalized care is common. In particular, many nationalized health systems seem to have trouble finding enough doctors to meet demand.

In Britain, a lack of practicing physicians means the country has had to import thousands of foreign doctors to care for patients in the National Health Service.

"A third of (British) primary care trusts are flying in (general practitioners) from as far away as Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Switzerland" because of a doctor shortage, a recent story in the British Daily Mail noted.

British doctors, demoralized by long hours and burdensome rules, simply refuse to see patients at nights and weekends.

Likewise, Canadian physicians who have to deal with the stringent rules and income limits imposed by that country's national health plan have emigrated in droves to other countries, including the U.S.

Tomorrow: Why most doctors oppose the government's plan — in their own words.

***SPRAYER

09-16-2009, 01:04 PM

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Coin_ExactChange_160.gif

Taco John

09-16-2009, 01:07 PM

I sure wouldn't blame them.

Stinger

09-16-2009, 01:09 PM

But it only affects the insurance companies...............

petegz28

09-16-2009, 01:13 PM

Direkshun will be along soon to tell you this poll is wrong because "he disagrees"

Calcountry

09-16-2009, 01:17 PM

I sure wouldn't blame them.Do you think this fool would LET them quit?

He fired the CEO of GM? wtf would it be to him to pass the "essential service servitude act of America"?

Fillibuster proof senate. If people protest, he can blame the Republicans for being obstructionist. More troops to Afghanistan, "the real war".

orange

09-16-2009, 01:38 PM

Direkshun will be along soon to tell you this poll is wrong because "he disagrees"

I wouldn't disagree with this poll until they actually publish the thing - which they haven't. Can YOU find it?

But... IBD's polling record is suspect:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/trackpoll101408.gif

Brock

09-16-2009, 01:39 PM

My doctor told me he likely would retire if this stuff turns out to be what he thinks it is. I realize it doesn't really mean anything, but that's what he said.

petegz28

09-16-2009, 01:41 PM

I wouldn't disagree with this poll until they actually publish the thing - which they haven't. Can YOU find it?

But... IBD's polling record is suspect:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/trackpoll101408.gif

I think the OP contains the poll in the commentary. As far as them being "suspect", save it. That is the standard retort from someone who seems to be on the unfavorable end of a poll.

Mr. Kotter

09-16-2009, 01:55 PM

I think the OP contains the poll in the commentary. As far as them being "suspect", save it. That is the standard retort from someone who seems to be on the unfavorable end of a poll.

...talk about ironic. That's the whole premise of this "new" poll....to refute a poll they consider suspect. Sheesh.

:rolleyes:

petegz28

09-16-2009, 01:56 PM

...talk about ironic. That's the whole premise of this "new" poll....to refute a poll they consider suspect. Sheesh.

:rolleyes:

Keep talking in cricles. One man's accurate poll is another man's suspect poll.

Mr. Flopnuts

09-16-2009, 02:00 PM

Walmart is probably hiring greeters in a town near them.

dirk digler

09-16-2009, 02:00 PM

One man's accurate poll is another man's suspect poll.

True but IDP also had a poll showing McCain winning and that 75% of young voters were voting for McCain.

So they are not in the top 50 of reliable. Just saying.

Radar Chief

09-16-2009, 02:01 PM

My doctor told me he likely would retire if this stuff turns out to be what he thinks it is. I realize it doesn't really mean anything, but that's what he said.

Actually it means you’ll have to go looking for another doctor, which could be an increasingly difficult task.

wild1

09-16-2009, 02:02 PM

I wouldn't disagree with this poll until they actually publish the thing - which they haven't. Can YOU find it?

But... IBD's polling record is suspect:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/trackpoll101408.gif

So what? They polled 13% as undecided a month out from the election. Was this supposed to "prove" something?

petegz28

09-16-2009, 02:03 PM

True but IDP also had a poll showing McCain winning and that 75% of young voters were voting for McCain.

So they are not in the top 50 of reliable. Just saying.

Wow, so when I post a Rassmusen poll, who was the most accurate with the election, I get accused of postin suspect polls as well....

I'm flying 35,000 feet somewhere over Eastern Ohio now -- isn't technology wonderful? -- so I can only comment on this briefly, but the Investors' Business Daily poll purporting to show widespread opposition to health care reform among doctors is simply not credible. There are five reasons why:

1. The survey was conducted by mail, which is unusual. The only other mail-based poll that I'm aware of is that conducted by the Columbus Dispatch, which was associated with an average error of about 7 percentage points -- the highest of any pollster that we tested.

2. At least one of the questions is blatantly biased: "Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and th quality of care will be better?". Holy run-on-sentence, Batman? A pollster who asks a question like this one is not intending to be objective.

3. As we learned during the Presidntial campaign -- when, among other things, they had John McCain winning the youth vote 74-22 -- the IBD/TIPP polling operation has literally no idea what they're doing. I mean, literally none. For example, I don't trust IBD/TIPP to have competently selected anything resembling a random panel, which is harder to do than you'd think.

4. They say, somewhat ambiguously: "Responses are still coming in." This is also highly unorthodox. Professional pollsters generally do not report results before the survey period is compete.

5. There is virtually no disclosure about methodology. For example, IBD doesn't bother to define the term "practicing physician", which could mean almost anything. Nor do they explain how their randomization procedure worked, provide the entire question battery, or anything like that.

My advice would be to completely ignore this poll. There are pollsters out there that have an agenda but are highly competent, and there are pollsters that are nonpartisan but not particularly skilled. Rarely, however, do you find the whole package: that special pollster which is both biased and inept. IBD/TIPP is one of the few exceptions.

Buck

09-16-2009, 02:12 PM

Until they poll doctors with the same question regarding quitting early, regardless of the bill or not, that percentage is a useless Stat.

orange

09-16-2009, 02:15 PM

...

***SPRAYER

09-16-2009, 02:17 PM

They showed a 2% lead by Obama when every other poll had him in double digits. He won with double digits, of course.

It proves their sampling is unreliable.

More work, less pay. Doctors will love this!

orange

09-16-2009, 02:21 PM

So what? They polled 13% as undecided a month out from the election. Was this supposed to "prove" something?

It proves I posted the wrong poll. Meant to show the 70% youth-for-McCain.

:doh!:

Nevertheless, I still don't see their actual poll - just the story about it. Apparently Nate Silver at 538 can't find the poll either.

dirk digler

09-16-2009, 02:23 PM

Wow, so when I post a Rassmusen poll, who was the most accurate with the election, I get accused of postin suspect polls as well....

get the point?

Rassumsen was accurate this past election but he is a registered Republican so he does slant his polls slightly to the right but not nearly as bad as IDP. They are one of the worst.

RINGLEADER

09-16-2009, 02:23 PM

I wouldn't disagree with this poll until they actually publish the thing - which they haven't. Can YOU find it?

But... IBD's polling record is suspect:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/trackpoll101408.gif

QUICK! Blame the polling firm!

ROFL

Oh man Obama isn't going to like this one...

Hopefully 45% of the respondants weren't Republican and only 18% Democrat.

RINGLEADER

09-16-2009, 02:26 PM

2. At least one of the questions is blatantly biased: "Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and th quality of care will be better?". Holy run-on-sentence, Batman? A pollster who asks a question like this one is not intending to be objective.

Wasn't that the Obama plan -- before he changed the number to 30 million?

orange

09-16-2009, 02:31 PM

QUICK! Blame the polling firm!

ROFL

Oh man Obama isn't going to like this one...

Hopefully 45% of the respondants weren't Republican and only 18% Democrat.

From just two days ago:

http://www.rwjf.org/healthreform/quality/product.jsp?id=48408

A RWJF survey summarized in the September 14, 2009 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine shows that 62.9 percent of physicians nationwide support proposals to expand health care coverage that include both public and private insurance options—where people under the age of 65 would have the choice of enrolling in a new public health insurance plan (like Medicare) or in private plans. The survey shows that just 27.3 percent of physicians support a new program that does not include a public option and instead provides subsidies for low-income people to purchase private insurance. Only 9.6 percent of doctors nationwide support a system where a Medicare-like public program is created in lieu of any private insurance. A majority of physicians (58%) also support expanding Medicare eligibility to those between the ages of 55 and 64.

Nice survey ...

How many doctors were surveyed and from where?

If I would have used those perimeters and techniques while conducting surveys in college, I would have been kicked out of school and rightfully so. That is indeed a bush league survey.

See how it goes?

I didn't notice you there defending the pollsters for some reason.

Of course, they needed no real defense because UNLIKE IBD they published their actual poll:

Methods
Sample
In April 2009, we obtained data on a random sample of 6,000 physicians from the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile which includes current data on all U.S. physicians, regardless of AMA affiliation. We excluded physicians from U.S. territories because health care reform questions may not be as relevant to them and excluded physicians in training because of the limited experience most trainees typically have with insurance leaving a sample of 5,157. We categorized physicians into four groups: 1) primary care (internal medicine, pediatrics, family practice); 2) medical subspecialists, neurologists, and psychiatrists; 3) surgical specialists and subspecialists; and 4) the remaining, or “other,” specialties. We randomly sampled approximately equal numbers of individuals from each of the 4 specialty groups. Sampling weights were created to correct for the stratified sampling design in our analyses. The study was approved by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine Institutional Review Board.

http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/48408physician.pdf

memyselfI

09-16-2009, 02:32 PM

Yeah, right. What are they going to do? Become baristas at Starbucks or flip burgers at In and Out? What else could they do to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year by spending ten minutes with two patients in an hour and the rest of the time reading files of which they will not know a damn thing about you when they see you anyway.

RINGLEADER

09-16-2009, 02:33 PM

From just two days ago:

See how it goes. I didn't notice you there defending the pollsters for some reason.

Of course, they needed no real defense because UNLIKE IBD they published their actual poll:

Orange, please.

This is a survey, not a poll. I realize that.

I'm just having fun.

petegz28

09-16-2009, 02:39 PM

From just two days ago:

See how it goes?

I didn't notice you there defending the pollsters for some reason.

Of course, they needed no real defense because UNLIKE IBD they published their actual poll:

Nice spin job, dickhead. Mine and the other's comments were made before you posted the stats of the survey. Which were not in the OP.

Direckshun

09-16-2009, 02:46 PM

From just two days ago:

See how it goes?

I didn't notice you there defending the pollsters for some reason.

Nice spin job, dickhead.

ROFL

God I love DC.

dirk digler

09-16-2009, 02:49 PM

Nice spin job, dickhead. Mine and the other's comments were made before you posted the stats of the survey. Which were not in the OP.

I posted the link in the OP so all anyone had to do was the click the link. I know that is complicated for some. :p

donkhater

09-16-2009, 02:55 PM

Frozen hospitals in the future?

petegz28

09-16-2009, 02:59 PM

I posted the link in the OP so all anyone had to do was the click the link. I know that is complicated for some. :p

Here is what was on your post or the link..whichever..

The survey was conducted between June 25 and September 3, 2009 by Salomeh Keyhani, M.D., M.P.H., and Alex Federman, M.D., M.P.H., of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. While the survey was conducted in several “waves” over a tumultuous summer for the health reform debate, no statistically significant differences were identified in physician responses throughout the summer

dirk digler

09-16-2009, 03:03 PM

Here is what was on your post or the link..whichever..

I know you are pretty smart but there is a button in the middle that says Download LMAO :D

Physician Views on the Public Health Insurance Option and Medicare Expansions: Full Report
Download (http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/48408physician.pdf)

wild1

09-16-2009, 03:03 PM

Yeah, right. What are they going to do? Become baristas at Starbucks or flip burgers at In and Out? What else could they do to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year...

They could simply practice elsewhere. Happened widely in Canada in response to the income shock. The UK has to import docs on a contract basis at great expense.

Common sense tells you that providers will flow away from this because it hurts them, in much the same way as patients who have the financial ability try to swim away from it.

SNR

09-16-2009, 03:07 PM

My dad is 59 and still a practicing urologist. He said he feels great and able to keep up with the demanding responsibility of being a full-time physician, and that he'd like to continue working well into his 60s.

He also said that he may retire earlier than expected if this bill gets passed.

He's not 45% of doctors, but the way he talks, and after meeting several of his colleagues around the hospital in my hometown growing up, I imagine they share the same sentiment. I have no reason to not believe this is not a somewhat accurate sampling

dirk digler

09-16-2009, 03:12 PM

My dad is 59 and still a practicing urologist. He said he feels great and able to keep up with the demanding responsibility of being a full-time physician, and that he'd like to continue working well into his 60s.

He also said that he may retire earlier than expected if this bill gets passed.

He's not 45% of doctors, but the way he talks, and after meeting several of his colleagues around the hospital in my hometown growing up, I imagine they share the same sentiment. I have no reason to not believe this is not a somewhat accurate sampling

SNR just curious why your dad would quit if this was passed?

Also if they actually did something with malpractice reform would that change his mind and others?

Brock

09-16-2009, 03:15 PM

SNR just curious why your dad would quit if this was passed?

Also if they actually did something with malpractice reform would that change his mind and others?

Getting paid less would be my guess.

petegz28

09-16-2009, 03:17 PM

SNR just curious why your dad would quit if this was passed?

Also if they actually did something with malpractice reform would that change his mind and others?

A doctor is on Bloomberg right now basically shredding the Baucus plan as punitive to too many people and does little to reduce costs

DumbHillbillies

09-16-2009, 03:25 PM

BS, they would be at work the next day. The specialist and insurance companies are just proactively pouting. They don't give a f about the health of the nation just $$$$.

petegz28

09-16-2009, 03:26 PM

BS, they would be at work the next day. The specialist and insurance companies are just proactively pounting. They don't give a f about the health of the nation just $$$$.

So basically you think some people should be forced to be doctors?

dirk digler

09-16-2009, 03:32 PM

Getting paid less would be my guess.

I am curious how much less they would get paid but if they reformed malpractice would that not even it out or possibly make the doctors more money?

DumbHillbillies

09-16-2009, 03:33 PM

So basically you think some people should be forced to be doctors?

I think that medicine is more than just a job/paycheck. So, if your going into medicine for the sole purpose of making a sh*t load of money then get out.

Brock

09-16-2009, 03:35 PM

I am curious how much less they would get paid but if they reformed malpractice would that not even it out or possibly make the doctors more money?

"Reform malpractice" how?

petegz28

09-16-2009, 03:36 PM

I think that medicine is more than just a job/paycheck. So, if your going into medicine for the sole purpose of making a sh*t load of money then get out.

Wow, really? So all the money they spend for medical school, malpractice insurance, office space, staff, supplies, information systems, etc, etc, should get paid for how?

Brock

09-16-2009, 03:36 PM

I think that medicine is more than just a job/paycheck. So, if your going into medicine for the sole purpose of making a sh*t load of money then get out.

People usually do try to maximize the pay available for their skillset. I suppose you're above all that. Not to mention your comment shows that you apparently have no concept of what it takes to become a doctor to begin with.

DumbHillbillies

09-16-2009, 03:37 PM

SNR just curious why your dad would quit if this was passed?

Also if they actually did something with malpractice reform would that change his mind and others?

It would definitely cut down the cost of malpractice insurance that physicians have to carry.

petegz28

09-16-2009, 03:39 PM

People usually do try to maximize the pay available for their skillset. I suppose you're above all that. Not to mention your comment shows that you apparently have no concept of what it takes to become a doctor to begin with.

Hey, we should go to work for nothing more then what we need to pay our bills and feed our families and buy or clothes from Wal-Mart, don't ya know!

wild1

09-16-2009, 03:42 PM

I think that medicine is more than just a job/paycheck. So, if your going into medicine for the sole purpose of making a sh*t load of money then get out.

So, what would you say to someone who has spent a decade of their lives, and hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain this place?

Do you feel that in the future people will make this investment with no prospect of ever repaying their debts, or reaping a reward in proportion to their efforts?

What would you do if legislation passed in Washington that cut your salary by 50% or more?

Would you like to be treated by people who don't want to work in a competitive environment?

SNR

09-16-2009, 03:43 PM

SNR just curious why your dad would quit if this was passed?

Also if they actually did something with malpractice reform would that change his mind and others?Well, part of it is that he CAN quit whenever he wants. He's to that age where physicians just kind of wear down. They can't do the same really complicated procedures as before, etc.

As for this bill, he operates his own office. He's convinced that adding a government option will act as competition initially and eventually move towards a monopoly of health coverage services. He's skeptical of how the government can lower the cost of health care.

I'm not sure how the bill would affect private small medical treatment centers like his office. He thinks it's going to be bad for business in other ways. I do know that he's very charitable, and will oftentimes do certain procedures on the house for people whose coverage will deny them treatment or for people without health insurance. Also, there is that small percentage of people who simply request self-pay on the bill and then don't pay up. The government option in theory will get the money footed for his business, so I'm sure he has some other ideas.

Talking to him about this is frustrating. He'll get far too emotionally involved in the conversation and turn it into a diatribe of some type. I usually avoid this discussion around him, so I apologize for not answering your question directly. I'll ask him some time when I see him in the next couple of days, though.

dirk digler

09-16-2009, 03:45 PM

"Reform malpractice" how?

I know it is not probable but say take the best Republican plan and use that to reform malpractice or tort reform for doctors.

dirk digler

09-16-2009, 03:48 PM

Well, part of it is that he CAN quit whenever he wants. He's to that age where physicians just kind of wear down. They can't do the same really complicated procedures as before, etc.

As for this bill, he operates his own office. He's convinced that adding a government option will act as competition initially and eventually move towards a monopoly of health coverage services. He's skeptical of how the government can lower the cost of health care.

I'm not sure how the bill would affect private small medical treatment centers like his office. He thinks it's going to be bad for business in other ways. I do know that he's very charitable, and will oftentimes do certain procedures on the house for people whose coverage will deny them treatment or for people without health insurance. Also, there is that small percentage of people who simply request self-pay on the bill and then don't pay up. The government option in theory will get the money footed for his business, so I'm sure he has some other ideas.

Talking to him about this is frustrating. He'll get far too emotionally involved in the conversation and turn it into a diatribe of some type. I usually avoid this discussion around him, so I apologize for not answering your question directly. I'll ask him some time when I see him in the next couple of days, though.

SNR thanks for the great response and that was very insightful and much appreciated.

CoMoChief

09-16-2009, 03:52 PM

• More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered "no" when asked if they believed "the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better."

This is the most glaring.....and what's so frusturating to most Americans is that the govt has yet to tell anyone exactly how they are going to accomplish this.

- How are they going to cover nearly 50 MILLIONmore people WITHOUT raising taxes or spending more money is just a flat out lie.

- How is this going to make the "quality" of care, better? Most Dr's hate this legislation and are wanting to retire early or quit??? How is that going to make things better. The govt has yet to say how this is going to improve the quality of care.

- Not to mention there are loopholes, fine print and all kinds of other shit that can make the normal person go cross-eyed.

You can bet your ass this govt run system is going to be a lot like the DMV - which is incredibly inefficient at best.

Brock

09-16-2009, 03:53 PM

I know it is not probable but say take the best Republican plan and use that to reform malpractice or tort reform for doctors.

In other words, limit awards for people who suffer at the hands of the incompetent? Put me down for a "No".

FAX

09-16-2009, 03:55 PM

Sadly, I've had a lot of conversations with a variety of physicians lately. I always make it a point to bring up this issue (the health care overhaul deal) with them. So far, 100% of my doctors are opposed to more government involvement/interference in health care. They're already overwhelmed with government-inspired paperwork, handcuffed by a variety of regulations, and finding that the profession is far less profitable as compared to prior years. It's admittedly anecdotal, but factual.

So, the FAX poll is pretty much in agreement with these findings. I firmly believe that, should a "comprehensive" program pass, we'll soon experience a shortage of doctors - particularly general practitioners. It's the hassle factor and it's just not worth it for a lot of these guys. And to their way of thinking, government involvement equates to hassle.

FAX

ROYC75

09-16-2009, 03:56 PM

Well, that's "CHANGE" right there.

dirk digler

09-16-2009, 04:02 PM

In other words, limit awards for people who suffer at the hands of the incompetent? Put me down for a "No".

I am against limits as well especially in cases where someone dies but we do need some kind of reform in that area.

Taco John

09-16-2009, 04:05 PM

I wonder what shortages would lead to.

wild1

09-16-2009, 04:14 PM

I wonder what shortages would lead to.

No need to wonder - wait times, mistakes, and variance increase. Denials for serious procedures become as common or more common than they were in the old system. Fewer of the best and brightest flowing in. Pervasive attempts to commoditize, standardize, over-lean, under-investigate, under-treat, automate.

The entire system becomes focused on reducing cost and not on outcomes. The goal is to move as many head of cattle through the stockyard as possible, and not to pair people 1 to 1 with as complete and positive an outcome as possible.

These have not even been addressed in a cursory way by the administration, beyond a few platitudinous "We'll eliminate waste and fraud" and "We won't ration care, trust us."

Dave Lane

09-16-2009, 04:14 PM

ROFL

FishingRod

09-16-2009, 04:21 PM

To be fair this is probably about as relevant as the polls that ask if everyone should have healthcare but don't mention that someone is going to have to pay for it. I "consider" quitting my Job every day.